Appeal 3338069
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
amendments to approved application ref DC/23/68253 to remove indentation from rear extension to both ground floor and upper floor proposals. Demolition of existing conservatory to form 2 storey rear extension. Double storey extension to form loft rooms with roof lights. Single storey front extension to form porch and extended study. Single storey extension to extend existing bay window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The description of development refers to a previously approved application.
The previously approved application includes a rear extension that does not project across the whole width of the rear of the appeal dwelling, whereas the proposal the subject of this appeal does. In this regard, the appellant states that the proposal the subject of this appeal seeks to “infill an indentation to the rear extension.”
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a brick-built two storey detached dwelling. The dwelling is set back from the road behind a parking area and has a paved garden area to the rear.
The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of mostly two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. Dwellings are set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and have gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I noted that detached dwellings and pairs of dwellings are sited close to one another such that gaps between dwellings are very narrow. One consequence of this is that dwellings are built very closely to shared boundaries.
I also observed during my site visit that the appeal dwelling is sited further back from the road than its neighbour, Number [address]. This results in the appeal dwelling’s rear elevation being sited further back than that of No 5.
The proposed development would extend the appeal dwelling across the full width of its rear elevation at both ground and first storey height. This would result in an extension that would project well beyond No 5’s rear elevation. I find that the height of the proposed two storey element and its immediate proximity to the shared rear boundary would combine to the effect that the proposal would appear to “loom” above the rear outlook from No 5 to an overbearing degree. 10.The harm arising from this would be exacerbated by the proposed depth of the ground floor rear extension. This would project considerably further than the two storey element and would do so at such a height and within such immediate proximity of the shared rear boundary that it would unduly dominate the outlook from the rear of No 5, as well as that from the area of No 5’s rear garden closest to the appeal property. 11.Taking all of this into account, I find that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policy ENV3; and to the Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012) Policy EOS9, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3338069
- Application reference
- DC/23/68650
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000028
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 2 February 2024
- Valid date
- 2 February 2024
- Start date
- 27 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 6 December 2024
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 61211
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21